Administrative Law - OCA

An appeal concerning the constitutionality of security screening measures implemented at police headquarters.

The chief of police instituted a security protocol requiring all persons entering the building to pass through metal detection and bag screening.

A resident who regularly attended public meetings of the police services board refused to submit to screening and was denied entry.

The application judge found the security protocol violated freedom of expression rights and was not prescribed by law.

The appellate court reversed, holding that while the protocol limited freedom of expression, it was prescribed by law through the occupier's common law powers and the statutory duty to ensure safety under the Occupiers' Liability Act, and was justified as a reasonable limit under the Charter.

The applicant, a construction company, sought leave to appeal from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice dismissing its appeal from sentences imposed for environmental offences.

The company was convicted of two counts of discharging material into a watercourse contrary to the Ontario Water Resources Act and two counts of failing to notify the Ministry of the Environment of those discharges.

The total sentence imposed was $220,000 in fines.

The applicant argued the fines were excessive and that aggravating and mitigating circumstances should have been weighed differently.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error of principle and noting that the sentencing judge's weighing of relevant factors was owed deference.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his appeal from a Consent and Capacity Board decision finding him incapable of consenting to psychiatric treatment.

The appellant, a 36-year-old man with a college diploma and prior employment, had been diagnosed with psychotic delusional disorder and was found not criminally responsible on criminal charges.

The Board found he could understand relevant information but could not appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of treatment decisions because he failed to acknowledge his mental condition.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding no procedural unfairness, no unreasonableness in the Board's application of the legal test, and no ineffective assistance of counsel.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 16, 2018.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding of a direct connection between his substance abuse and his psychotic state at the time of the index offences, as well as the Board's conclusion that a significant threat to public safety remained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable for the Board to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion and to impose a conditional discharge given the appellant's progress balanced against ongoing risks.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code concerning the disposition of an individual found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The appellant challenged the Ontario Review Board's decision to maintain a detention order rather than grant a conditional discharge.

The appellant argued his risk could be managed safely in the community with a conditional discharge and resort to the Mental Health Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was not unreasonable given the evidence of the appellant's lack of insight into his mental illness, continued cannabis use, limited protective effect of anti-psychotic medication, and risk factors including occasional violence.

The appellant, a former flight attendant employed by Canadian Airlines International Ltd. before its merger with Air Canada in 2000, appealed the dismissal of his application for recognition of seniority by date of hire as a protected right under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant challenged the seniority integration decision made through arbitration and confirmed by the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which integrated seniority on the basis of relative position on seniority lists rather than date of hire.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, finding no infringement of the appellant's Charter rights under sections 7 and 15, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for aggravated sexual assault in 2013, appealed a disposition order from the Ontario Review Board requiring his detention in the secure unit at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health.

The appellant challenged the order as unreasonable and argued the Board should have intervened to break a treatment impasse.

The Court of Appeal upheld the disposition, finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety based on his history of elopement, substance use, and limited understanding of sexual consent.

The court determined that detention in the secure unit was the least onerous and least restrictive disposition and that rehabilitative programming was available in that setting.

A mortgage broker appealed the dismissal of its negligence claim against the Crown arising from fraud perpetrated by an individual who filed a fraudulent notice of change with the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, falsely identifying himself as a director and officer of a corporation.

The appellant relied on a corporation profile report obtained from the Ministry when advancing $1.8 million in loans.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that no duty of care arose at the first stage of the Anns/Cooper test.

The governing legislation did not contemplate a private law duty of care, and the payment of a fee for access to public corporate records was insufficient to establish proximity.

A 16-year-old appellant was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of his 14-year-old cousin.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his statements to police were admitted in breach of section 146(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The trial judge conducted a voir dire and admitted all statements.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made two fatal legal errors: (1) he improperly shifted the burden of proof regarding detention from the Crown to the appellant, and (2) he erred in concluding that section 146(2) protections did not apply because the appellant's detention related to a different offence (obstruction of police) than the ultimate charge (first-degree murder).

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was psychologically detained and entitled to the protections of section 146(2), which were not provided.

The statements were therefore improperly admitted, and the conviction was set aside with a new trial ordered.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the Ontario Review Board's disposition dated October 16, 2016.

The appellant sought an absolute discharge from a conditional discharge, arguing the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Board upheld the conditional discharge, finding the appellant remained a significant threat based on expert evidence that absolute discharge would lead to medication non-compliance and increased marijuana use, resulting in decompensation and threatening behavior.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's disposition reasonable and supported by evidentiary foundation.

The Law Society Tribunal brought a motion for directions regarding its participation status in an appeal before the Court of Appeal.

The Tribunal sought to participate as of right in the appeal of a judicial review decision, claiming automatic party status based on its participation in the underlying Divisional Court proceedings.

The applicant, Matthew Riddell, opposed the Tribunal's participation.

The court directed that the Tribunal's motion for leave to appeal proceed without the Tribunal's participation, finding insufficient basis for automatic party status and noting the Tribunal's lack of substantive participation before the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed a Consent and Capacity Board decision confirming her involuntary psychiatric admission.

She sought a declaration that a forced injection of anti-psychotic medication violated her Charter rights and requested rescission of her detention certificate as a remedy.

The central issue was whether the Board has jurisdiction to grant remedies under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Court of Appeal held that the Board does not have s. 24(1) Charter jurisdiction, despite having authority to decide questions of law.

The court found that the legislature clearly intended to exclude Charter remedies from the Board's jurisdiction based on the removal of s. 52(1) jurisdiction, strict statutory timelines, limited remedial powers, composition of the Board, and the availability of Superior Court appeals.

The applicant sought to enforce an agreement between Canada and three municipalities regarding the storage of low-level radioactive waste.

The applicant alleged that the municipality had misused income earned on a $10 million payment by failing to apply it exclusively to defray lower-tier municipal taxes for ratepayers of the former Hope Township.

The application judge found that Schedule 8 of the agreement created a non-charitable purpose trust and that the municipality had breached its trustee duties.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the agreement was a contract and did not create a trust over the payment or the fund.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for damages arising from a municipal tendering process and termination of an agreement of purchase and sale.

The trial judge found that while the respondent Town breached its tendering process by accepting a non-compliant bid, the appellants failed to demonstrate they would have been awarded the contract.

The appellants did not meet their burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the contract would have been awarded to them, as the trial judge found it more probable the Town would have re-tendered.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding it was open to the Town to reject all bids and re-tender with different specifications.

The agreement of purchase and sale was also properly terminated in good faith for legitimate business reasons.

The appellants, operators of hookah lounges in Toronto, challenged the validity of City of Toronto By-Law 1331-2015, which prohibits the use of hookah devices in licensed premises.

The application judge upheld the by-law as a valid exercise of municipal authority to protect public health and safety.

The appellants appealed on three grounds: (1) that the by-law's true purpose was to prohibit hookah lounges rather than protect health; (2) that the by-law impermissibly infringed property and civil rights; and (3) that the by-law conflicted with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the by-law's purpose was clearly the protection of public health and safety, that any economic impact was incidental rather than determinative of purpose, that the by-law was not confiscatory, and that it did not conflict with provincial occupational health and safety legislation.

The appellants appealed an application judge's order declaring an Order to Remedy Unsafe Building null, void, and inoperative.

The respondent cross-appealed seeking an interim injunction to prevent demolition and a declaration that the building was not unsafe.

The Court of Appeal found that the application judge made two errors: first, in finding that service of the Order to Remedy was defective when it was properly served on the owner by registered mail in compliance with the Building Code Act; and second, in finding that the Order to Remedy lacked the required specificity.

The Court held that the Order to Remedy contained sufficient particularity to enable the respondent to understand the case it had to meet and the deficiencies requiring remediation.

The appeal was allowed, the cross-appeal dismissed, and the issues of interim injunction and whether the building was unsafe were remitted to another application judge.

The appellant, Dr. Lynn Gehl, appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing her application for registration as an "Indian" under the Indian Act.

Dr. Gehl's entitlement to status turned on the 1985 amendments to the Act, which restored status to individuals whose ancestors had been unjustly deprived of it.

The central issue was whether the Registrar's Policy, which imposed strict evidentiary requirements for proving paternity, unreasonably denied Dr. Gehl registration when the identity of her paternal grandfather was unknown.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted a declaration that Dr. Gehl was entitled to be registered under section 6(2) of the Indian Act.

The appellants challenged the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to constitute a different panel for the sanctions hearing than the panel that presided over the merits hearing.

The merits panel found that the appellants had sold securities without being registered as dealers and traded securities without a prospectus.

After the original commissioners' terms expired, a new panel was appointed to conduct the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued this violated the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and principles of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court split on the issue but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's interpretation reasonable.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that both interpretations were reasonable and that the Commission's approach did not violate procedural fairness or natural justice.

The appellant appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition maintaining a detention order.

The appellant argued the Board erred in concluding she continued to pose a significant threat to public safety and that detention remained the least restrictive measure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding the expert evidence established the appellant suffered from schizophrenia with persistent delusional beliefs related to the index offense (assault of her mother), lacked insight into her condition, and would discontinue treatment if discharged.

Although the appellant had been placed in supervised community accommodation since the appeal was filed, the court found this did not undermine the Board's conclusion that conditional discharge would be inadequate to manage the risk.

The detention order was necessary to enable the hospital to approve and supervise the appellant's community placement.

The hospital appealed a mandatory order from the Ontario Review Board requiring it to provide up to two escorted visits per year for a forensic patient to his mother's home for dinner.

The patient had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for sexual assault offences and had been detained in maximum security since 1989.

The Review Board initially made the visits discretionary but amended its disposition to make them mandatory.

The Court of Appeal allowed the hospital's appeal, finding that the board erred in law and acted unreasonably by imposing a mandatory order without discretion.

The court held that while the board may encourage the hospital to create community visit programs, the terms must remain discretionary to allow the hospital to consider staff availability, patient stability, and the consent of the person to be visited.